The cuneiform tablet (BM 35603 = Sp. III 113)
is in the British Museum.
On this website, you will find a new transciption and translation by Bert
van der Spek of the Free University of Amsterdam (Netherlands), who
has recently restudied this tablet as part of his publication of the Babylonian
Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period. He also took the photos.

Commentary

Obv.1:
The name must concern Alexander
the Great. Before the name there is space for two signs, after the
name three to five signs, since it is not known whether the edge was used
as in some lower lines. Alexander the Great conquered Babylon in October
331 BCE and died there on 11
June 323.

Obv.2:
Upon the death of Alexander the Great dispute broke out about his succession.
Arrhidaeus, the mentally handicapped brother of Alexander, was appointed
king (under the name Philip) at the army conference near Babylon
(text).
The story as given by the classical authors that the posthumous son of
Alexander and Roxane
was designated as co-ruler is not supported by any dating formula from
Babylonia,
Egypt and the Levant. Philip was sole ruler until his death in October
317.

After his death dating formulae in Babylonia wavered between at first
a fictional eighth year of Philip (316/5), numbering years according to
"Antigonus,
the general" or "the general of the lands" (= stratźgos of
Asia), backdating to 317/6 BC, and Alexander
IV, the son of Alexander and Roxane from 316/5. When Seleucus reconquered
Babylon in spring 311, he declared that dating should be as follows "You
will count year 7 of Antig[onus the general as year 6 of Alexander, son
of] /idem and\ Seleucus,
the general" (Diadochi
Chronicle, iv 3-4). Thus the dating to Antigonus was officially abolished
by then. The Uruk
King List and the Saros Canon both assign 6 years of reign to
Antigonus. Hence the "kingless" period of Babylon will have been supposed
to endure six years. Cf. Boiy 2000, 2001, 2002, 2002a, 2002b in the bibliography.

Glassner reads: [I] Pi-lip-su šeš-šś šįIA-lik-sa-a[n]-dar
m[u 8] = Philip (III) (Arrhidaeus), Alexander’s brother: [8 ye]ars. If
this reconstruction is correct, the list would follow the year numbers
of the Diadochi
Chronicle (up to year 8). It would then differ in this respect from
the Uruk
King List, which assigns 6 years to Philip.

Obv.3:
The number of years is not preserved. The "1" observed in earlier editions
is not visible. The number probably was "6", covering the years October
317 (death of Philip) and spring 311 (arrival of Seleucus in Babylon).

Glassner reads: [3+]1 mu lugal ina kur nu tuk (etc.) = For [4]
years there was no king in the land. (Antigonus (cyclopus), the general,
was regent). The year number 4 would suggest the low chronology for Seleucus'
flight from Babylon, viz. 315 BCE. "Was regent" seems to be an inappropriate
translation for a period that "there was no king".

Obv. 3-4:
The line suggests that the rule of Antigonus was considered illegal.
Apparently Antigonus did not accept the kingship of Alexander IV.

Obv.5:
Sachs and Wiseman (1954, p. 205) translated: "Alexander, the son of
Alex(ander, was reckoned as king until) year? 6 (S.E.)".
Sachs and Wiseman rightly observe that the reading "MU" is uncertain as
the signs begins with two horizontal wedges. Their translation is possible
since year 1-6 of the Seleucid Era correspond to the six years of reign
of Alexander IV. Although it is true that in contemporary documents regnal
years of Alexander are given up to the 11th year, this list apparently
considered the years 317/6 – 312/11 as "kingless". Cf. comm.
Obv. 2. Although Alexander IV was killed in 310(?), the fiction of
his kingship was maintained until 305.

Obv.9:
The Babylonian king list actually returns to the ancient tradition
of "accession years". The first year of reign is considered to be the first
"full" year of reign. Cf. Boiy 2002b.

Obv.10:
Ajaru 51 SE: 18 May-16 June 261 BCE. The epithet "great" refers to
the fact that he was the "great king" in respect to his co-rulers, his
sons Seleucus (murdered by his own father in 266) and Antiochus, the later
Antiochus
II Theos. The Uruk
King List assigns 22 years of reign to Antiochus
I.

Obv.11:
The Uruk
King List assigns also 15 years of reign to Antiochus I.

Obv.12:
Abu 66 SE: 31 July-29 August 246 BCE. The Astronomical
Diary concerning this month reports that the news reached Babylon
on the 20th (AD II, no. -245A: r. 5-6'') = 19 August. In view of the similar
formulary it may be assumed that the compiler of the King List indeed took
his information from this diary.

Obv.13:
The news of Antiochus' death is treated in the Astronomical Diaries
(more...).
The traces are hard to read, but since we have only the choice between
NAM.MEŠ (rendering a natural death) or GAZ (rendering a violent death),
a reading NAM better conforms to the traces.

Obv.15:
There could have been a line inscribed upon the curve at the bottom
of the obverse. It must have reported the death of Seleucus
II in SEB 66.

In the lacuna between the obverse and reverse, we would expect references
to the death of king Seleucus II Callinicus (after 18 September 226) and
the accession of Seleucus
III Keraunos (before 10 April 225).

Rev.2:
The last document dated to Seleucus III is BRM II 28, dupl.. BiMes.
24, 19 (24.III.89 = 10 July 223). The first document dated to Antiochus
III is Oppert 4 (21.IX.90 = 21 December 222.). Cf. Del Monte 1997,
p. 233. This is a long interval. The Babylonian King list suggests that
Antiochus was recognized very late: the number of regnal years suggests
that the chronicler thought that Antiochus' first full year was 91 SE.

At the moment of Seleucus' death, Antiochus was in Babylon. The army
called him to Asia Minor, where he was made king; one would think that
this happened in the Late Summer or Autumn of 223. At that moment, Molon,
the satrap
of Media,
revolted. He even conquered Seleucia on the Tigris, and was defeated in
222.

No cuneiform source mentions Molon. It is possible that the author of
the Babylonian King List counts Antiochus' reign from the moment of Molon's
final defeat and ignores his revolt. Alternatively, we must assume that
Seleucus III died late in the interval, in the summer of 222.

Rev.3:
The fact that year 91 was Antiochus' first full regnal year is omitted.

Rev.4-5:
A.MEŠ LUGAL ("the sons king") must be mistaken for A-šś
LUGAL.MEŠ ("his son, kings"). The phrase refers to the period of his co-rulership
with his son. Cf. RC 32.

Rev.6:
Simanu 125 SE: 9 June-8 July 187 BCE. Antiochus was murdered after
he had tried to take away money from a temple in Susa.
The exact date was 3 July (reverse 7).

Rev.9:
10 Ulūlu 137 SE: 3 September 175 BCE. The meaning of ana
IGI (clearly written on the edge) is uncertain. Sachs and Wiseman suggested
the meaning "before", implying that Seleucus was already dead by that time
(Sachs & Wiseman 1954, p. 208). However, this would require “ina
IGI” (ina mahri or ina pāni). Perhaps it is only a
note of the compiler of the list (ana amāri, "to be checked").
It is remarkable that the scribe used the phrase NAM.MEŠ, which implies
that Seleucus died a natural death, which is wrong. Seleucus was murdered
by his vizier Heliodorus (better known for his attack on the temple in
Jerusalem).

Coin of Mithradates I the Great, founder of the Parthian empire (Bode-Museum, Berlin)

Upper edge:
There is room for two or three lines, of which a few traces remain.

Left edge 1:Demetrius
II Nicator (145-138 and 129-136/125 BCE) is possibly mentioned on the
left edge of the tablet. Since the second Di is not certain, it
might also refer to Demetrius
I Soter. If the reference refers to Demetrius II, the reigns of Antiochus
V Eupator, Alexander
Balas and Demetrius I must have been mentioned on the last line of
the reverse and the three or four lines of the upper edge, hich seems hardly
possible.

Left edge 2:
Sachs and Wiseman (1954, p. 209) suggested that the traces might be
m/Ar?\
for Arsaces, but the traces are certainly not unequivocal. It is, however,
an attractive suggestion that the list covered the years from the conquest
op Alexander in 331 to the conquest of Babylonia by Mithridates (Arsaces)
in 141 BC.